OT- The Queen's Christmas Day Message to the Commonwealth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ram59

Yes you are missing something, through your dislike of the Royal family and your support of swale, you can't see that it is no different to call the Royal family not British as it is other second and third generation immigrants. It is the same insult and is wrong in both accounts.

---

Except that;
1) I don’t ‘dislike’ the Royal Family...I simply question their relevance in a ‘modern’ democracy.
2) I don’t ‘support’ Swale particularly...I just happen to agree with him on some matters including this one.
3) It isn’t, by definition, insulting to regard people as ‘not British’...it is all a matter of context as mentioned a few posts ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ram59

My motivation was purely a reply to Swale's claim that the Royal family were not British.

---

It wasn't a claim it was a fact! Delve a little into the history and thats plain to see that they are european, I blame King Harold for letting those Normans in!

Regarding the original O/T

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08...chy-here-stay/

So if we can keep this thread going for a hundred years we might be able to claim to have influenced things.

'God Save The Queen' - 71% of the population

'Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss', Pete Townshend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

If Parliament laid down legislation which abolished the Monarchy and brought "their" land into public ownership then that would clearly override the courts - abolition would not necessarily cause any problems though it might not sit well with the establishment. I didn't say it would be easy, but then such major changes in civilisation rarely are.

The status of the Monarch in those other countries, Sweden, Denmark and Holland in particular is entirely different from that in the UK, possibly because there is less of a history of an entitled aristocracy. They modernised, the UK Royal family has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, well its got to the 19th century and the relationship between the Monarch and the "subjects" in the Uk is rather odd for a democracy.

---

The Courts, our Courts will always strike down bad laws. Parliament cannot simply enact a law that removes private ownership from 1 party and allow the rest. If they become private citizens they then should enjoy the rights that every private citizen, including the right to own property.

There's a lot of ifs and hopeful possibles, the simple fact of the matter, either you keep or remove. If you remove, they become private citizens keeping all their possessions. But besides this, there is no compelling reason to remove them, they are doing the job expected of them. When they fail, when they become a burden, when they do wrong, by all means, let the public decide. But just for 21st century thinking, I say no. When the Queen or King become a detriment to society, I'll gladly join the chorus. Until then, it's working, let it continue.
Simple really.

I have an idea - why not nominate Dianne Abbot as the official successor to the current Queen when she finally shuffles off this mortal coil. She would tick lots of boxes for those who perceive the royal family as coming from a privileged background. With her ability to cost things, she would be cheap, and with the ability to count, I suggest she could be Queen Dianne IV. Also the Americans will love it as they will probably figure the Queen of Hearts didn't die after all and Bill and Hal's Mum has come back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roger_ramjet

I have an idea - why not nominate Dianne Abbot as the official successor to the current Queen when she finally shuffles off this mortal coil. She would tick lots of boxes for those who perceive the royal family as coming from a privileged background. With her ability to cost things, she would be cheap, and with the ability to count, I suggest she could be Queen Dianne IV. Also the Americans will love it as they will probably figure the Queen of Hearts didn't die after all and Bill and Hal's Mum has come back.

---

You have lots of ideas Rog.
Weird ideas. Thankfully you're not a lawmaker..

Saw this on FB a couple of days ago. What is it that makes seemingly sane people go and stand out in the pouring rain for hours to watch a German family of benefit scroungers go into a building to worship an invisible, non existant deity in the sky?

The writer is obviously not a royalist and not a believer in God. Has he got it wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

Saw this on FB a couple of days ago. What is it that makes seemingly sane people go and stand out in the pouring rain for hours to watch a German family of benefit scroungers go into a building to worship an invisible, non existant deity in the sky?

The writer is obviously not a royalist and not a believer in God. Has he got it wrong?

---

But then again if you had a President or some other form of head of state, people will still come.

This play on their Germanic heritage is also way over the top, they forget or conveniently choose to ignore the English and Scottish part of their lineage. It's not from the German side that the Monarch is chosen rather from Sophia, Electress of Hanover. She like anybody today married a foreigner. What's wrong with that?
We also have Dutch and Russian blood in the royal line.

If the writer says this about them then what about the multitudes who do the same for music idols or actors?
What about us?
Paying good money to watch 22 men kick a ball for 90 mins.

I think we can and should end this debate along the following lines:

1) Don't change for the sake of it.

2) If they become a burden. If they fail. If they abuse, then we must seriously consider changing.

3) This far it works. Thus far the Palace acts as a referee and advisor to the Govt of the day.

4) This far Royalty plays a part in charity and other social enterprises.

5) Thus far the Queen and senior royals help in building foreign relations.

Therefore let the status quo remain but yes from time to time, continue to examine and ensure the relevance and roles they play continue to benefit the nation

Agreed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romanis

But then again if you had a President or some other form of head of state, people will still come.

This play on their Germanic heritage is also way over the top, they forget or conveniently choose to ignore the English and Scottish part of their lineage. It's not from the German side that the Monarch is chosen rather from Sophia, Electress of Hanover. She like anybody today married a foreigner. What's wrong with that?
We also have Dutch and Russian blood in the royal line.

If the writer says this about them then what about the multitudes who do the same for music idols or actors?
What about us?
Paying good money to watch 22 men kick a ball for 90 mins.

I think we can and should end this debate along the following lines:

1) Don't change for the sake of it.

2) If they become a burden. If they fail. If they abuse, then we must seriously consider changing.

3) This far it works. Thus far the Palace acts as a referee and advisor to the Govt of the day.

4) This far Royalty plays a part in charity and other social enterprises.

5) Thus far the Queen and senior royals help in building foreign relations.

Therefore let the status quo remain but yes from time to time, continue to examine and ensure the relevance and roles they play continue to benefit the nation

Agreed?

---

Not really Rom. You started the thread by applauding the Royals...some have disagreed, in fact it has been quite divisive which may or may not be indicative of the nation as a whole’s reaction to the Royal Family.
Regarding your points.
1) It’s not for the sake of it...it’s because, in the view of many, they’re an expensive irrelevance with lots of ‘hangers on’.
2) You don’t only change if things become a liability. You change when things are no longer needed.
3) How does it work? The occasions when the ‘Palace’ has acted as anything more than a ‘rubber stamp’ are too few to have relevance.
4) Lots of other ordinary folk play an equal or greater part in ‘charity and social enterprises’...so what?
5) The Queen, as distinct from the rest of them, is certainly held in high esteem abroad. The same is possibly true of ‘Bill and Hal’, largely I suspect because they have photogenic partners and a much better mastery of the media than their father or their aunt and uncles. Then again...the likes of Bobby Charlton, Paul McCartney, David Beckham and, amongst many others, the Spice Girls...have been held in similarly high esteem and been good for ‘foreign relations’...doesn’t mean we have to pay for them and remain subservient for ever and a day.
Times change Rom...we no longer have a Post Office, a Bank, a School and a railway station in every village...like the Royals they have, imo, become expensive luxuries that serve little purpose.

P.S. While we’re at it...can we get rid of bloody knighthoods too? I mean...Barry Gibb...what’s he got one for...Stayin’ alive?

Its probably a life peerage so if he hadnt stayed alive he wouldnt have got it? But Nick Clegg: that ones a joke. A total failure in his chosen profession and destroyed his party at a stroke one night.

I am no fan of the honours system in that they make celebrities even more self important, but the recent developments that have allowed "ordinary people" to be recognised for their life work seem laudable. When it was just a matter of honouring a stream of retiring civil servants it was dismal.

HOWEVER this system seems to work in primary schools to boost the self esteem of 6 year olds as "star of the week", "golden work boards" etc. So maybe we are all kids at heart.

I was listening to something on the radio this morning about how, for a fee, there are companies out there that will nominate individuals for honours list and "manage the process". They claim a 60% success rate. The fees range up to £ 20,000! Its a sad society we live in.

Shall we all chip in and nominate Rattea CBE for services to interpersonal skill development.